Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Is the Conservative Party spineless and cowardly?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The stages of a campaign are:

-attracting the vote

-identifying the vote

-getting out the vote.

If you perform these three tasks better than the opposition, you will probably win.

So just bribe people with their own money.

42 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

These tasks are true in the nomination campaign as well as the election. If you nominate and elect sheep, that is your doing. You need to select a candidate that is not a lamb and is able to gather support. Politics, at it core, is all about gathering and maintaining support.

Parties should alter their rules so that only those who have been members in good standing for a least a year or two would be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap. Given the size of local riding associations, one person could get the nomination simply by bringing in people from his particular congregation at his particular church, temple, mosque or whatever, without any regard to whether they have a hope of winning in the greater community. That happens constantly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

So just bribe people with their own money.

No, you are doing the democratic thing by finding out what the voters want (They are the employer after all), and do what they ask. 

Quote

Parties should alter their rules so that only those who have been members in good standing for a least a year or two would be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap. Given the size of local riding associations, one person could get the nomination simply by bringing in people from his particular congregation at his particular church, temple, mosque or whatever, without any regard to whether they have a hope of winning in the greater community. That happens constantly.

It works for Brad Trost. His congregation gets him in every time. 

"This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap."

Yah, I believed that when I ran for a Federal PC nomination and I was steamrolled. The winner of the nomination went on to win the election.

 

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No, you are doing the democratic thing by finding out what the voters want (They are the employer after all), and do what they ask. 

So yes. Bribe them.

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It works for Brad Trost. His congregation gets him in every time. "This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap."Yah, I believed that when I ran for a Federal PC nomination and I was steamrolled. The winner of the nomination went on to win the election.

And would just about anyone have won the same election? And did the people he signed up take any further part in the party afterward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

So yes. Bribe them.

Is it bribery to do what your boss tells you to do?

And would just about anyone have won the same election? And did the people he signed up take any further part in the party afterward?

Not a lot. He lost the next election. 

I agree with you about instant memberships but it isn't going to change as long as it works.

The way elections should work is candidates stand up an state their solutions and let the voters decide. Like that is going to happen. The "Conservative" Party is not spineless, it is working in the real world. They could stand up and be all ideological and end up like the Green Party, or they can listen to what voters want, the people who pay the salaries of government, and do what the bosses tell them to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Argus said:

Parties should alter their rules so that only those who have been members in good standing for a least a year or two would be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Yes, there does need to be a better validating of membership but I am not sure if that accomplishes it. What really is needed is:

1. Ensuring members are Canadian citizens

2. Members are only members of a single party (? I think this is important, but can see some minor counter arguments)

3. Members are authenticated, not just a name on a paper along with a fee

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One earlier comment was about the sincerity of politicians.  I have encountered literally HUNDREDS of candidates from several parties, and what was mostly true was that their motivation in getting involved was indeed to do something of service to not just their party, but to their fellow citizens.  These can be clearly labelled poltical newbies.   They usually start off that way, then find out that they are poltical newbies/outsiders and really haven't got much clunk. 

Then, there are the hard core party members - who are the source of ultra-partisan stuff (although I would agree with Argus, in the Conservatives, the source of ultra-partisan babble, not action).  Finally, there are the really dangerous ones - those who are put there by the back room gang.  They get into politics to further their backers' dreams of dispensing privelege...usually to their backers.   There are not a lot of the latter, but they are definitely a constant presence as they are the real "insiders".  My preference for the future of ANY of the latter is to end up where they belong - in jail.

Where Canadians (hardly just conservatives) always come up short is failing to look at "the big picture" and see what is happening overall.   Instead, people tend to concentrate on the issues that either effect them or what is hand picked by the media (Colten Boushie a perfect example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same question could be asked of the British counterpart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Conservatives have realized that running on social issues are vote losers. 

It's a contradiction to believe that government should stay out of people's lives but look to government to chime in on how people conduct their personal lives. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think Conservatives have realized that running on social issues are vote losers. 

It's a contradiction to believe that government should stay out of people's lives but look to government to chime in on how people conduct their personal lives. 

Finally, a conservative that seems to get it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 4:54 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Ideology is a fun debate in Poli-Sci seminars but it has no place in government. It is folly to think there is one all- encompassing theory that will solve all problems.

...

Queen & Argus,

I strongly suggest that you look at the, uh, Poli-Sci of Margaret Thatcher - a woman!

Or, how about the 1988 Canadian federal election - the famous free trade debate! Ideology? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Or, how about the 1988 Canadian federal election - the famous free trade debate! Ideology? 

Elections are often fought on ideology, but governing should't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Elections are often fought on ideology, but governing should't be.

I don't see much ideology displayed at our elections as opposed to people offering goodies to targeted groups paid for with other people's money.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 9:13 PM, August1991 said:

Queen & Argus,

I strongly suggest that you look at the, uh, Poli-Sci of Margaret Thatcher - a woman!

Or, how about the 1988 Canadian federal election - the famous free trade debate! Ideology? 

What has Mrs. Thatcher's gender to do with ideology?

Free trade was a Liberal platform, to which, the Tories countered wit "No truck nor trade with the yankees." Mulroney was opposed to free trade until the MacDonald Commission reported that it would be in the best interests of the country. That is pragmatism, not ideology.

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 12:12 PM, The_Squid said:

Most reasonable people think “that Coyne is pretty savvy, even if I don’t agree with everything he says”.  

That quote shows how unreasonable your position towards anyone with a different opinion than you is. 

Most reasonable people without a preconceived bias about his opinions would know the following comment was said tongue in cheek:

"Sometimes I think Andrew Coyne is an idiot, and sometimes I think he's pretty savvy. This tends to depend, of course, on how much he agrees with me, or I with him."

But then I appreciate nuances are difficult for some to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What has Mrs. Thatcher's gender to do with ideology?

Free trade was a Liberal platform, to which, the Tories countered wit "No truck nor trade with the yankees." Mulroney was opposed to free trade until the MacDonald Commission reported that it would be in the best interests of the country. That is pragmatism, not ideology.

I appreciate you use the "Conservative" and "Liberal" labels referring to specific political parties. Interestingly free trade is neither a "Liberal" or "Conservative" ideology if we go by the actual true definitions of both belief systems, i.e., Bentham-Hobbers/Liberal, ad Burke-Conservative.. If anything Libertarians would argue no regulations as to trade is their brainchild. Free trade is actually today's multi-national interests trying to avoid paper work and interference from governments as their transactions move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One world government is a  concept that would turn us all into blobs run by a very elite few with the rest of us molded into a serving class. China with another name.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 5:00 PM, Argus said:

So just bribe people with their own money.

Parties should alter their rules so that only those who have been members in good standing for a least a year or two would be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap. Given the size of local riding associations, one person could get the nomination simply by bringing in people from his particular congregation at his particular church, temple, mosque or whatever, without any regard to whether they have a hope of winning in the greater community. That happens constantly.

 

I know it's not exactly gerrymandering, but it sounds close enough without actually changing riding boundaries.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What has Mrs. Thatcher's gender to do with ideology?

Free trade was a Liberal platform, to which, the Tories countered wit "No truck nor trade with the yankees." Mulroney was opposed to free trade until the MacDonald Commission reported that it would be in the best interests of the country. That is pragmatism, not ideology.

Trudeau Snr  made the federal government "bilingual";  heck, he restricted the powers of the federal government. 

Mulroney made "Free Trade" happen; as he created the GST - Canada's federal VAT, making Canada a civilized country with a federal sales tax.

With Meech Lake, Mulroney tried to make Canada civilized. 


Chretien? Nothing - except almost destroying our country in 1995.

Harper? He got rid of the penny - but he kept us all at peace.

===

Trudeau Jnr - I fear that the federal government under another Liberal will cause more controversy .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Chretien? Nothing - except almost destroying our country in 1995.

I guess turning around the finances of the country from one of continual debt to one actually paying it down is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I guess turning around the finances of the country from one of continual debt to one actually paying it down is nothing.

Paul Martin paid many people to leave; - but then again, Brian Mulroney/Michael Wilson did the heavy lifting when interest rates were high - after the crazy spending of Trudeau Snr in 1982-84. 

====

Agreed, while Ontario is adding to debt (PSBR, to use an old term from memory) overall, Canada's government debt to GDP ratio is still enviable.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, August1991 said:

Brian Mulroney/Michael Wilson did the heavy lifting when interest rates were high - after the crazy spending of Trudeau Snr in 1982-84.

Mulroney added more debt than anyone else including Harper, over $300 billion. The interest rates were significantly higher under Trudeau Sr. in the early 80's than they were under Mulroney/Wilson. Please use a better example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least trudeau should come thru with some of his bribes. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Mulroney added more debt than anyone else including Harper, over $300 billion. The interest rates were significantly higher under Trudeau Sr. in the early 80's than they were under Mulroney/Wilson.

Yes, the interest rates were higher under Trudeau, but only towards the end of his term, and he started his first term with almost no debt and a deficit well under a billion. Mulroney started his first term with all the accumulated deficits of the Trudeau years. The adjusted (for inflation)deficit his tenth year in office was ten times the deficit his first year in office. There was a brief Clark interlude, then four more years of Trudeau. His adjusted deficit was 71.5 billion in his last year vs 4.5 his first. Mulroney's adjusted deficit was actually lower when he left office than when he started. As a % of GDP Trudeau went from -0.9% to -7.9% while Mulroney went from -8.3% to -5.6%.

Harper, incidentally, went from 0.9% to 0.1%.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

Edited by Argus
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 12:46 PM, Argus said:

....

Harper, incidentally, went from 0.9% to 0.1%.

....

For those that don't know, Argus has referred to a key measure of the viability of any State:

Government debt as a percentage of GDP.

====

Argus, disagree with your specific numbers. 

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×